MARWADI KISHOR PARMANAND versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 15-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MARWADI KISHOR PARMANAND 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
MARCH 15, 1994 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 186(}-Section 302/34--Conviction under-Ap-
preciation of evidence of a solitary but reliable eye witness-Conforming to 
B 
. and consistent on all niate1ial points-His presence at place of occurrence 
established-Conviction based on his testilnony even without coJTobora-
C 
tion-Sustainable. 
Criminal Procedure Code, !973-Sections 378 and 386-Appeal 
against acquittal-Scope of 
Evidence-Witness deposing about a fact evidence has to be ap-
D 
preciated in a realistic nianner having due regard to all the sunnunding facts 
and circumstances prevailing at or about the time of occurrence. 
The two appellants were convicted u/s 302/34 or the Indian Penal 
Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court converting the 
acquittal of the appellants recorded by the Trial Court into conviction. 
This appeal by special leave had been directed by the appellants against 
the judgment or the High Court. 
The prosecution case \Vas that the complainant, PWI was a Govern-
ment Contractor and the two deceased persons, namely P and S who were 
known to him were also engaged in the contract business; that the deceased 
were interested in securing the contract from Saurashtra Chemicals for 
removal of dust but no final deal was struck in their favour; that the 
complainant accompanied with the two deceased persons met PWS, an 
Officer of Saurashtra Chemicals in his office where they discussed with 
him the terms and conditions but the contract was still not finalised; that 
when the complainant along with the two deceased were proceeding on foot 
E 
F 
G 
to take meals, the two appellants came on a scooter, got down with open 
knives in their hands and rushed towards P and S; that one or the 
appellants held P and another held S and asked them as to why they were 
coming in their way as they were not happy with the deceased who were H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
trying to obtain the said contract; that the complainant being frightened 
on seeing the appellant~ with open knives, stood at a distance at the corner 
of the broader lane watching them with fear and anxiety; that one of the 
appellants gave one knife blow lo P and another appellant gave one knife 
blow to S; that the complainant looking to the incident of assault by knife, 
B became nervous and ran away fro1n there, came to a nearby lane and when 
he heard that the appellants started the scooter and went away, he 
returned lo the lane where the incident had occurred; that the complainant 
noticed that though there were blood stains in the lane, P and S were not 
there and, therefore, he proceeded ahead and found P lying unconscious 
at the corner of the by lane; that he rushed to a nearby tea shop and made 
C a telephone call for ambulance and also informed the police station of the 
incident; that thereafter the complainant proceeded further and found that 
S was lying dead on another road; that the ambulance arrived after about 
an hour and injured S and P were taken to hospital by the complainant 
where the two were declared dead and the complainant gave first informa-
D tion report which was registered. The prosecution further stated that the 
tWo appellants also reached the police station in injured condition and they 
were also taken in the same hospital by a constable and after the report 
of the complainant was recorded and sent to the police station for registra-
tion, the same police ollicer also recorded the FIR alleged to have been 
given by the appellant No. 2 which was also registered. 
E 
F 
At the Trial the two appellants adjured their guilt and pleaded false 
implication. They denied having met the deceased persons on the day of 
occurrence or the alleged entries in the police station dairy regarding their 
appearance in the police station or that they were taken to the Hospital. 
Both the appellants denied the disclosure statement, the seizure of knives 
at their instance, seizure of scooter as well as appellants clothes stained 
with blood. They took the plea that they had a quarrel intre se in which 
they had sustained the injuries. 
The trial court on scrutiny of the evidence of the sole eye witness, the 
G complainant, PWl disbelieved his testimony on account of veracious infir-
mities and recorded the order of acquittal of both the appellants. The Trial 
Jndgc recorded the findings that the evidence of P

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.